Despite near-daily summary executions of unarmed people, assaults and malicious arrests by U.S. police, Americans still love their cops

A Gallup poll from this past June found that white Americans are 60 percent confident in police, while non-whites checked in at 48 percent. But in recent years, public trust in police has slid. A 2009 poll found that 63 percent of respondents of all races said police had “very high honesty and ethical standards,” but that number dropped to 57 percent the following year.

Many Americans have people employed as cops in their families, and use that fact to rationalize “the good” of the entire profession. Some are simply too afraid to say anything about obvious violent, thuggish behavior of cops, while others desperately want to hold onto what little Pollyanna Americana is left in their hearts. The facts speak for themselves as far as why Americans need to be proactive in protecting themselves against the largest and most heavily armed gang in the USA. Here are three of those facts.

Low IQ Academy Applicants Preferred

A good number of white Americans reject affirmative action legislation because they say it unfairly gives less qualified “minorities” jobs they don’t deserve. Police departments, on the other hand, actually prefer and covet the least qualified applicants they can possibly get.

Mr. Robert Jordan of New London, Conn. wanted to become a cop. The first step in that jurisdiction is for applicants to take a Wonderlic test. Many Americans have heard of this exam because NFL prospects must take it as part of the draft process.

Jordan took the test on March 16, 1996 and scored a 33 (out of 50). He was not allowed to move on to the next stage of the application process because he scored too high on the test. The City of New London defended its policy, saying Jordan scored too far above the “normative median” of 21 and would “get bored” with the job and quit. The average NFL player also scores around 20 on the test, according to Bleacher Report.

Mr. Jordan filed a discrimination lawsuit in federal court alleging a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. The district court dismissed the case, ruling that New London’s policy is “rational.” The U.S. Second Circuit Court Of Appeals affirmed. In other words, it is legal for police departments to purposely hire the least intelligent individuals they can find. Plus the less education they’ve obtained, the easier they are to manipulate. This is why so many Americans are being savagely attacked.

A 2010 Michigan State University study found that cops with a two or four-year degree resorted to using force 56 percent of the time, while those with only a GED or high school diploma used force 68 percent of the time. The Bureau of Justice Statistics found in 2003 that 83 percent of U.S. police agencies require cops only to have a GED or high school diploma, and only one percent require a four-year college degree.

A September 2, 2010 article in Pacific Standard magazine suggested that requiring police to have college degrees may be discriminatory towards minorities. Oh the irony.

Incentives To Kill

Operation-Nation has covered more than 600 instances of police killing, assaulting and/or raping an American since 2006. The offending cop was placed on “paid administrative leave” within a day or two of the incident more than 90 percent of the time.

Police across America know full well if they kill someone (on or off-duty), they will get an extended paid vacation, sometimes lasting years. They also know that it is extremely rare for cops to be held accountable in anyway for their actions.

Mr. Kelly Thomas was beaten to death ON TAPE by Fullerton, Calif. cops Manuel Ramos, Jay Cicinnelli, et al. as he begged for his life in July 2011. It was a small victory for Americans when the aforementioned two killers were actually charged with murder and other crimes. But reality set in at trial when the cops were acquitted.

A paid vacation, along with “atta boys” from fellow cops and Americans who love them, is only a dead human away. Even if they are fired from their current positions for killing or assaulting an American, another cop organization will hire them.

Former Bella Vista, Ark. cop Coleman Brackney, in a rare occurrence in U.S. jurisprudence, was actually convicted of negligent homicide when he murdered James Ahern in January 2010. After serving the insulting 30 day jail sentence, he was hired as police chief in Sulphur Springs, Ark. last March.

The incentives are too great to pass for cops, many of whom desire to kill already. Americans with common sense realize this.

“Protect And Serve” Myth

Roommates Carolyn Warren and Joan Taliaferro called police when they heard intruders break into neighbor Miriam Douglas’ apartment and rape her on March 16, 1975. Dispatchers with Washington, D.C. police assured them help was on the way.

The two women, believing police would be there soon, yelled down to the apartment to try and stop the assault. But the two attackers heard them, forced their way into the women’s apartment and proceeded to assault and rape them for the next fourteen hours. Police never showed up.

The women filed a lawsuit – the oft-cited Warren vs. District of Columbia case – but were met with a harsh reality. The Federal DC Court of Appeals dismissed the case in 1981, ruling that cops have “no general duty to provide…police protection.” The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on a similar case, Deshaney vs. Winnebago County, a few years later. That decision was nearly identical to the Warren case, with the majority ruling that there is no relationship between police and citizens that mandates protection. Thus it is well-established law that cops are not here to “protect and serve” despite that falsehood being displayed on many police badges, cars and station walls.

Americans who choose to ignore the facts are the ones who will be in the most danger. Sadly it has come to the point that we must stand our ground when we fear for our lives against these armed henchmen. Police protect and carry out the orders of government, corporations and individuals with large collections of Federal Reserve notes. Anybody who believes otherwise is naive, mentally disabled, and/or afraid to face reality.

There are far more of us than there are of them. But until we’re united on this front, expect more of the same for the foreseeable future.

Jody Kohn Dontchya hate when people just DON'T get it? (and before I piss Yasmin off, I mean: in this one instance, you didn't quite understand Jody's intended-to-be-sarcastic-yet-truthful point - so don't think I'm calling you dumb. Cuz I'm not.)

Yasmin T. Barnes You are totally wrong. The supreme court has confirmed, and the police agree, that their job is to investigate crimes and bring criminals to justice. Wherever it says "To Protect and Serve" on any cop car, that is false advertisement at work.

Michael Pepin Im not sure if you're being sarcastic but ill reply as if you're not. Police are first responders, when a crime happens they show up and take notes and pictures and make sure the scene stays un changed until the DETECTIVES (who has more training and education) show up to investigate and determine what happened. I've never heard of a patrolling officer solving a real crime.

Yasmin T. Barnes But they could stop crimes that are happening when thay are called. If their job was to serve us they would have stopped a 14 hour rape. IT IS NOT THEIR JOB TO PROTECT OR SERVE ANYONE. IT IS THEIR JOB TO ENFORCE LAWS IF THEY WANT TO.

Yasmin T. Barnes No, that is the grand illusion! The Supreme Court ruled they are NOT here to "protect and serve; they are here to "enforce the law" which generates INCOME through fines and the Prison Industrial Complex. That is why they are here.

Yasmin T. Barnes I'm sure you are a good person and want to believe that wholeheartedly but police are nothing more than gang members of the state and they can/will kill you if they want to, and all they have to do is tamper with evidence, lie, threaten witnesses, etc.

Yasmin T. Barnes Unfortunately like it or not it actually is part of their job! Many police actually have quotas they have to maintain of citations they need to write. Crime is now big business. As are traffic violations, ordnance violations,,,and now with prisons being privately owned,,,well you get the point big big money!

Christian Lewis What systems of government were these armed guards patrolling the streets under? You kind of have these things called natural rights that everyone has when they're born that no government has the authority to infringe upon or reduce to simple privileges which is why cops don't have the right to basically bother you, randomly pat you down, check your belongings or generally harass you unless they suspect you but know an actual crime has been committed. In simpler terms any other way is called slavery Dude.

The occupation attracts a high proportion of bullies who get off on beating folks up and carrying guns. Hell no I don't trust them! I regard them as more of a threat to my safety and liberty than all the whores, pimps, burglars and crackheads in town.

Morgan O'Brien-Bledsoe One reason they make good surgeons is because they don't get nervous about the idea of accidentally killing you. You wouldn't want somebody with nerve issues or shaky hands operating on you. What you want is a cold blooded machine with extensive training. They also don't crack under pressure to perform, which is key in the operating room. Some of the best cops and soldiers in history were psychopaths, and there is nothing wrong with being one - it's the way you were raised and personal choices. Just because you are a psychopath does not destine you to be a bad person, just like being normal doesn't make you a good person.

I'm sick of this psychopath/sociopath shit. You're all just as bad except you think your animal behavior is normal and rational, and justifiable... you like to point the finger at what you don't understand because you are scared.

Not that I sympathize with police, whatsoever, but there are a lot of "GOOD" human beings throughout history that were psychopathic. With that said, there have been a lot more who used their power of persuasion, charm, their charisma, for evil and self-serving purposes. I have to say, it's hard to give a shit about anything or anyone when they treat you like a second class citizen for something you cannot change.

I have NEVER had a cop to help a situation when I REALLY needed them. But I have been lied on by them, harrassed, you name it. One time I called them to report my car stolen; I had to go find the car MYSELF and thankfully the jerk was still DRIVING it, close to where it was stolen. I had to get the car back myself. I have also seen cops lie in court FIRST HAND! I have been also taken advantage of by the police; so no, I DON'T and will NEVER trust them.

... and they can die like any other common criminal when he/she tries to rob someone. I say kill 'em when they try to rob you or kill you. Maybe if this happened more they would get the message that they work for us and not the other way around.

Michael Pepin Wouldn't the cops just hunt you down and kill you afterwards? Wouldn't you rather be alive than have your stuff? You are morally justified in using force to defend yourself and kill an attacker if necessary, but they have lots of backup.

- Enforcing the Federal Bake Sale Ban (no arrest yet that I am aware of, but rest assured that as soon as some soccer mom bakes some cookies in an effort to raise money for her kids team and the "authorities" find out about it ... some cop will arrest her)

Robert Prunella then kill DA's family, with the message to resign and leave town,. Until the police start being police and not the personal goon squad for the 1% we may have to go full mafia and wreck them all. I would hope that never has to happen, but I'm afraid the police departments are leaving no choice.

Paul Shene III I think we can expect that type of crime, but I don't condone it. They need to be fired, that is all. Let them be reminded how hard it is to find a job to feed your family, and maybe they will know what the poor people that they stomp on have to go through. But nah, they'll cry and whine instead, but then accuse everyone else of "projecting".

Robert Prunella, they need to be deprived of their "qualified immunity", be required to carry personal liability insurance -- no insurance, no job -- with each allegation of misconduct their premiums go up and after 3 such allegations being proven true they lose their insurance and also their job (remember -- no insurance, no job). They must be made to wear body cams, any allegation of abuse or misconduct or out and out criminal activity with no recording or corrupted recording the allegation is accepted as valid and the previous consequences apply. Also no police department should EVER be allowed to investigate one of their own, an outside agency no connected with any policing agency, or a citizen oversight group must be the investigatory agency and their finding is final, unless new evidence shows up. Only in this way will we ever get the policing in these united States of America back to actually doing the job they were hired to do -- investigate crimes, and find and arrest the perp(s). We also need to reduce the numbers of cops in most departments, since their job is to investigate crimes the only cops needed are the detectives, ever since the SCOTUS ruled they do NOT need to intervene in a situation where a person is in danger from another, why should we allow them to have all these cops that do nothing but hassle people for money, let the municipalities and States get their revenue another way and we can see to our own protection via the 2nd Amendment.

Jamie Curtis "Most" aren't exactly going out of their way to distance themselves from "some." So while you may think generalization a waste of time for whatever reason that defies logic, it certainly seems accurate.

Most aren't? Well then I must be living in the wrong city...in every city I have ever lived in cause in all of my police encounters I have only ever been in the company of a good policeman twice! This isn't generalization this is fact

Jamie you fucked up big time when you referred to the "other extreme".
If one extreme is being a unstable, violent, egotistical psychotic cop bastard, the other is merely being a sensitive, sociable and social-driven human being.

Here's the problem. The good ones should find the bad ones even more offensive than we do. Those who ARE good, and who believe that there are good cops, should be yelling LOUDER about the cops who kill with impunity than we are, but they're remarkably silent. When cops get away with blatant murder, and, face it, they are, the GOOD COPS should be expressing disgust as well. What we get is crickets.

We give cops a great deal of discretion, but deliberately hire them based on a lack of intelligence that actual discretion requires? That's not the way to hire peace officers, that's the way to hire thugs.

Coming onto threads like this to remind us that "the majority of cops aren't like that" is meaningless when it DOESN'T MATTER. Those GOOD cops are as silent as phantoms when it comes to shit like this. Most of them don't end up testifying against their fellows, for some reason or another.

So don't get offended when people don't see the difference. It's not that distinctive.

Ryan McCurine Yep. But that only works for the cops that have information and aren't putting it to use. Now, look at the reality of it.

Someone in Precinct A does something illegal. Not everyone in the department knows about it. Someone investigates it, and evidence is collected. Still, not everyone knows about it. Rumors go around eventually, but that doesn't mean anyone knows the truth of what happened.

You are saying that everyone in Precinct A is bad because they didn't stand up and fight against the bad cop. People who didn't have information to bring forward. You're labeling them bad cops because they didn't just step up even without evidence to the contrary.

Furthermore, you're also saying that Someone in Precinct Z (hundreds of miles away) is also a bad cop because nobody in Precinct A stepped forward to present evidence against the bad cop there. Because the Police of Precinct A were all "bad cops" because none of them chose to (or had the information to) act against the bad cop, suddenly "all cops" are bad cops.

This kind of logic makes no sense.

I'm sorry but anyone who believes that reality works this way really needs to open their eyes.

Yes, there are bad cops. Yes, sometimes their BS gets covered up. But that does _NOT_ mean that the majority of cops are bad cops, or are a part of the cover-up. You assume an awful lot against them, but don't give any form of benefit of the doubt.

Scotty TheInsane there are no good cops, they enforce laws that are silly, ridiculous and obnoxious, they lack the sense of civil liberties, they tend to get a person in jail and let the judge decide, they are security guards with guns and think they are somebody because they carry a gun and drive a police car, to me they are sorry ass mother fuckers low life scum zero brains to be somebody but a police officer, after a garbage truck driver a police officer is second in place as a no brainer job

They know. The criminal world isn't that big. They all know the players, the same snitches, the same thieves, the same pimps, and pushers and all. They talk and deal with them all. They talk, and tell. Eventually they all know. Now, having proof to do something; different story altogether. However, They ALL KNOW! Yes even in different precincts.

Samuel K Parker - That's hilarious. That's like saying that there's some special extra sensory perception that they have for being policemen. No, you really don't understand how basic physics work. But lets break it down.

Let's say I live in New Hampshire. You live in Missouri. A cop out there kills a man in cold blood. You're saying that the guys in my small town New Hampshire precinct somehow know the circumstances of the killing. That's just plain up retarded.

John Kawasaki - They also enforce laws that keep you safe. They keep drunk drivers off the road (which in case you aren't aware, they're a real danger.) You're a moron if you're blaming the cops for enforcing "silly laws." THEY DON'T MAKE THE LAWS. Start looking to the real source of the problem - the law makers.

You are dead wrong about their being "no good cops." It's literally not possible for that to be true. It is simply against the odds. Even if you don't like laws being enforced (in which case, you're a moron who thinks that anarchy is actually a viable system of living,) and despise the bad cops for what they do (I also despise the bad cops... for the record...) that doesn't mean that all of them are out doing bad things.

Also, your statement "They tend to get a person in jail and let the judge decide..." Um, yes. But they don't "tend" to do that. The specifically do that. It's their job. That's how our legal system works. Innocent until proven guilty.

Would you rather they arrest people and perform sentencing on the spot? Because... that's what's happening in the cases where you have cops shooting someone in cold blood. They're sentencing them to death for whatever perceived crime they think they're witnessing.

Once again, you guys are missing the truth of the matter. NOTHING in life is "all or nothing" when it comes to bad versus good people.

There are good and bad clergymen.
There are good and bad professional football players.
There are good and bad doctors.
There are good and bad soldiers.
There are good and bad race car drivers.
And there are good and bad police men. I've known some of the good ones. Any statement you make to infer that they are inherently "bad" without proof is utterly invalid.

The police enforce laws of an obvious sociofascist oligarchy. The republic is dead. This government represents itself as such republic as a very clever propagandist. Enforcing laws of a corrupt state makes you a corrupt statesman. Be it by malice or ignorance is of no matter. It would make no sense for me to kill my neighbor over a petty transgression and claim ignorance, as it would be of no defense. Yet police use the Nuremberg Defense all of the time. It is de facto the reasoning brought up to their defense, elevated by themselves and their supporters.

I am not here to claim that every cop wakes up and says "Im gonna be hard on those who won't bootlick today." Because they don't. Like you said, for all cops to be malicious is unreasonable. It is not, however, unreasonable to view police as the hand of the monster that holds the sword against the neck of the masses. They are in fact, enforcing laws of the oligarchy, written by such oligarchy in order to secure resources and power from the masses and transfer to said oligarchy. If police were smarter and better educated they would see that they are only partly the praetorian class, and their families definitely not raised to such position. If they could see this, they would understand that their actions are against themselves. But they don't. Some people, technology and systems have advanced far, far faster than the average man. leaving "the common man a fool."

It is of no consequence to the public that the police officer does not know that he is doing wrong, it its only consequence to the public that he is doing it.

Nick Mcalpin - First off, I'd like to thank you for giving a well thought out argument, rather than the sort of drivel that I've been reading here. It's nice to see someone who takes the time to convey their thoughts in a rational and level headed fashion.

With that said, I can say that I understand where you are coming from. I'm not a huge supporter of our government the way that it currently stands, but a lot of this argument seems to be an issue of placing blame where it truly belongs. While there are some individuals who blame guns for gun violence, a larger portion of the population realizes that the weapon isn't to blame, it's the person who loads it, chambers the round, aims it and ultimately fires the gun at another being who is to blame for the violence being perpetrated.

To break down that analogy, I submit that in this case the policemen are the "gun" in this case. The individual wielding the gun is representative of the corrupt government entities. People here are simply saying "All guns are bad." The fact of the matter is that while they do a dirty job, and some guns are inherently defective and end up misfiring, that hardly makes the gun the evil thing here.

Removing the metaphors here for the time being, let's be pointed about it. Much of the public is outraged that the police enforce what they consider obscene laws; but how many of these people are the ones you want making laws for you or deciding what laws are appropriate and what laws aren't?

Should we stop police from arresting Child Molesters? How about Drunk Drivers? What about Drug Dealers? How about Thieves? Rapists? Should we stop them from pulling people over for speeding?

You can say all you like that people just don't like the enforcement of stupid laws, but I'll bet that you can't survey 100 people and find two of them that agree on which laws should be kept and which should be abolished. And that's the problem that we run into.

Whether or not the Republic stands as it used to doesn't change whether or not we need laws. We do. And for laws to be effective, we need people to enforce those laws. And for laws to be chosen, we need representatives who decide upon those laws. You see a pattern here?

Any citizen who blames the police for enforcing laws that they -themselves- are doing nothing to fight are every bit as at fault as the police officer who enforces it.

But the truth is, this isn't about the average police officer. This entire thing has been an exercise in smearing the names and faces of the average police officer by equating them with the truly vile ones. Not only is that an unfair representation, but it doesn't take more than a few extra brain cells to figure out that one or two bad eggs does not mean that all omelets are bad.

I'll say it again. Yes, there are bad cops. But there are also good cops. And anyone blaming all other policemen for the failings of a few is simply buying in to sensationalist media hype, and extrapolating illogical situations from tiny segments of incomplete and invalidated sources.

I find the problem systemic in nature for the most part but also describe the individual officers responsibility to absolve themselves from such an innane system. American officers are as responsible for enforcing sociofascism in the US as Nazi soldiers and Gestapo were for conducting the holocaust. Be it differences in magnitude (amplitude), the wavelength is the same.

You question which laws should be in place and which shouldn't. This is easy, laws that can be classified as malum in se should be held as the moral standard, as they are derived from the common morality of the subjects in affects. Those laws who are considered malum prohibitum are designed only to expand power and resources from the "resource sink" if you will, to the oligarchy, whether it be directly or by some psychological consequence of the enforcement of such law.

The actual definition of what is malum in se would be extremely tricky and would need to be firmly grounded in a common philosophy reasonable for the system and its roots. Locke, anyone?

We do in fact, need laws. In our current state of affairs we have a legal system that only applies to the ruled class. The ruling class (Oligarchy + Praetorian) is not ruled by the same set of standards that everyone else is.

Our basis of government only allows certain actions to be taken by the government that are expressly allowed, all other actions are forbade. This is so far from the actions of our government to render the government at hand unable to be described as the United States of America, as it was commissioned.

So, we actually don't even have a true legal system. Where we need laws the most, we do not have useful enforcement. The Oligarchs are the true anarchists, as they have no rulers.

The gun analogy seems to be a poor one. A gun is an inanimate object, a police officer is not. A police officer can decide if it wants to be commissioned by this power or that. A gun cannot dictate if it is held by a gangbanger or a citizen looking to enforce property rights.

I cannot find it morally justified to press the agenda of the state, especially knowing the general public has a distaste in its mouth of government because even if they cannot articulate that it is a corrupt, violent entity, they know it by context. This gives me reason to believe that even if in cognitive dissonance, officers know that they are pressing the will of an authoritarian entity.

In no way can one find honor in being a police officer. You can be a good person all of the time, commit one heinous crime and be considered evil. Their agreement to enforce the will of those who seek to consolidate and concentrate power and resources is their abhorable act.

The idea of no person willingly becoming a Police Officer or serving in that capacity is in and of itself, far more detrimental to our society than the idea of people standing in the role and doing at least a modicum of good.

If we had no police, no laws would be enforced. That includes the good laws. That includes the laws that protect our basic rights, the laws that protect our families from harm by others *and* the laws that seem to service only the rulers of state.

You are right that there is a disconnect in who can be punished and who cannot. That's pretty much inarguable. But the fault of that doesn't come down to the policemen. The fault of that comes down to those we put in positions of power, and also to ourselves for not standing up and fighting it.

In no way is it right to blame a police officer for the actions of another police officer. Once we have established this as a logical foundation (and I assure you that it is logical to blame the individual for their failings, and not the failings of other individuals), then we have a grounds upon which the truth can rest.

If we assume the individual is responsible for their own behavior, then we assume the Officer who shoots a man because he dislikes people of a specific color is entirely at fault and in the wrong. We also assume the Officer who turns the other way and lets it happen, or lies to back up his friend is also in the wrong. However, we must also assume that the Officer who has nothing to do with the situation, who lives several states away and who has never born witness to such an act, and who has never perpetrated any illegal or immoral acts, also can *not* be blamed.

So we have established that not having police would be bad for us. We have established that not all Officers can be held accountable for the actions of other Officers.

There are good cops. While you may find it negative to *be* a cop, it would be even worse if we didn't have them. Therefore, I can only assert that since we would be worse off without them (as we have no alternative solution for dealing with crime), they are a necessary part of our current society. And if they are filling a necessary role, then there is no dishonor in filling that role.

If our laws are to blame, blame the law makers. If our government is to blame, blame the individuals who are causing the problem. But let's not forget that the citizens are as much at fault for refusing to stand up for their own rights. Banded together, our citizens could overthrow any leaders... but whether they will or not has yet to be seen.

Easy solution. Get rid of police. Stop telling everyone the police are here to save them. They are clearly not charged with such responsibility. Allow people to arm themselves. There are far more reasonable good people than bad people, the baddies wont last long. There will be a sharp spike in crime, a sharp spike in killings and a decline into homeostasis. The end. People defend themselves, the oligarchy lost its standing army.

What you propose would cost the lives of many innocent "good" people. Far more than are lost to police brutality. And then again you come down to the assumption that each of the armed individuals are defending the same rights. It sounds good from an idealistic standpoint, but the reality of it is far from so clear cut as you might have us believe.

Let's assume for a second that we all agreed on a simple basic set of laws, and we as people upheld them. You're still not accounting for groups that start to think differently and band together. As there is no "large force" to turn against them, but rather the individuals who those people harm, it becomes a losing battle to try to keep them in check.

What about contrary religions? It was proven in our history that people feel fully justified to kill in the name of religion. How long would it be until we had another Crusade? One religion attempting to prove itself the dominant one by wiping out anyone who doesn't follow their beliefs. The worst part is, under your proposed solution, it's far more likely to work.

No, I'm sorry but a self-policed society simply doesn't work at the scale that we're talking. We need individuals who can enforce the laws. Otherwise, you break down into chaos. Feuds. Gangs. Small group vs small group warfare. And that just ultimately leads to people flocking to "authority figures" they feel will institute something to keep them safe. See also: Government.

Our particular form of Government is flawed. Very flawed. So is our system for making laws. But it's a LOT better than the chaos that you've described.

This is actually a very enlightened point. What I have described is Anarchism or Voluntaryism. Which cannot exist in this world because of the lack of broad education. You are right, in a pragmatic fashion, this would only devolve into another government. People clamoring for safety from the mini governments being formed by some lesser of evils government.

A true pragmatic solution would be to hold government to a very high penalty for transgression. True independent review, mandatory sentencing, double civilian penalty. Define a purposeful violation of the constitution as treason and keep it a capital offense.

Rid ourselves of the drug war, the military industrial complex and the ever growing prison industrial complex. If we could just resolve these three transgressions we could make this a MUCH MUCH better place to live.

The argument that you just made, that anarchism/voluntaryism would devolve into another unchecked government is what the system of checks and balances our founding fathers looked to find some sort of solution to. They were extremely weary of centralized power. We have just lost our republic, as many thought that we would.

Its very much a shame that people are not capable of living under anarchism/voluntaryism. It would be a great world if we were so enlightened.

Scotty TheInsane Unfortunately, Precinct A will investigate "Someone's" crime and clear him of it more than 99% of the time. This is more than a 'sometimes' thing. This is an 'almost every time' thing. If you see this go down in your Precinct and don't either fight like hell or quit, you ARE complicit.

Nick Mcalpin - In the vein of such pipe dreams, I would go so far as to say that it's really a shame that we need laws in the first place. That it would be a great world to live in if people didn't commit violent acts against one another, and if we didn't have to protect ourselves from the stupidity of others. If such a society existed, there would be no point to the voluntaryism.

Alas, we don't have that as you have pointed out. So while it's a nice exercise to look at the possible situations of a "should'a, could'a, could'a" type scenario, we have to look at what we can deal with now.

Your suggestion of a pragmatic solution is largely something I would agree with. I would argue however that the "War on Drugs" is, while executed extremely poorly, still something that drives at some positive ends. Personally, I don't care what individuals want to do with their own bodies. That should be their right. However, the problem starts when those substances get into the hands of children. And let us not forget how bloody of an industry the "hard drug" trade is. Supporting it just supports the means by which it exists, and the harm that it brings.

That notwithstanding (and I am sure we could hold yet another conversation on that alone,) I largely agree with your pragmatic solutions. If we held our government to a strict standard, and had in-place very strong punishments for acting outside of those guidelines, enforceable by the public, we might just have a society worth living in.

That, by itself, would be a solution to many issues. The widespread changes that would allow for would be pandemic in their scope, but ultimately result in the possibility for a return to our ideals. When laws were passed that were against the nature of the established office, we would simply demand they be fixed, or punish those who signed them into office and -then- remove them. Sort of a "Citizen's Veto" of sorts. We could prune outmoded or morally ambiguous laws that don't serve to protect our citizenry.

That's a far better way of thinking than to point at the police who enforce our current society's rules and blame them for doing the same thing that we do by failing to fight against those very rules.

Bob McDowell Where are you getting this "99%" statistic from? What verifiable source are you getting it from?

There's an issue with claims like this. People will look at someone quoting statistics on a random website that's full of bias, and assume truth then run off and start spouting it as if it were gospel.

I challenge you to find a single non-biased source of information to prove your statement true.

Right now, I very highly doubt your assertion to be true. If you are able to provide this kind of proof, I am more than willing to listen. If it can be proven true, I'll gladly admit that I'm wrong and alter my viewpoint in a reasonable fashion. But I refuse to go on the word of random people with an obvious bias and no proof behind their supposed statistical percentages.

So basically we just went round and round to figure out that we need to pass laws to stop stupid shit and repeal stupid ineffective laws.

Which Im sure either one of us could have said at the beginning of the discussion, and likely that very few people would disagree.

The question is now, how do we get congress to pass laws that put them under such scrupulous measures? They aren't going to pass laws that endanger themselves. Not without riots and burning cities. And that is just bad for everyone, moreso for the people than the ones who are supposed to be feeling the heat.

We just need more REAL education and to wait a few generations for enlightenment to occur. The public education system being in the hands of the FEDGOV is the worst thing for any decent cause.

Nick Mcalpin Privatized schooling similar to things like the Montessori schools would be a great start. It's hard though, because the less educated the population gets, the less interested they are in education in the first place.

You ask the question on how to drive toward this? I can assure you that brutality against the police (like we're seeing) and looting (like we saw in Ferguson) are not the appropriate measures.

I agree with your standpoint on education. I likewise agree that it's not likely to be solved in a single generation, but until we have a generation willing to stand up to the government (even if in nonviolent protest) then we're going to continue to suffer under the same regime.

Yes, we both more or less went circles to find a point where we both agree on things, but the reason for that is because the original argument was "Police are bad." And that is a standpoint that even now I cannot agree with. I would assert "Bad police are bad" as a logical truth. But beyond that, we cannot assume all police (regardless of their place in the machine of law enforcement and government that -we allow to stand as it is-) are inherently bad.

No argument can be made that gives a 100% or even a 99% (a number that many people feel is a compromise from giving a full 100% assessment, but failing ultimately to realize that it's no more factual than saying 100% without proof) of police officers are inherently bad.

Beyond all of that, I'm glad that you and I could at least come to this point where we've identified the problem, and seen at least a possible beginning point for how it may be corrected.

1.) Better Education
2.) Less Government involvement in Education (while it would seem this is the same as part 1, it is possible to have better education without less Government involvement... albeit difficult.)
3.) People who are -more- involved with understanding our political system and working within it to change things.
4.) Demand for laws that hold corrupt politicians accountable.
5.) Demand for a (citizenry peer-reviewed) democratic overview of our current Constitutional amendments, and a method for said citizenry to alter or remove amendments that We the People (as opposed to elected Government officials) feel are unconstitutional.

Scotty TheInsane, the ONLY laws we need are don't deliberately physically hurt anyone and don't take other people's stuff. And 99% of the laws on the books are clearly unconstitutional and therefore not valid laws, merely unconstitutional statutes that are null and void upon the moment of their passage. Here's the SCOTUS on that:
The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:
The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.
An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.
Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . .
A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one.
An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.
Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.
No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.
– Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)

Gail Wiltse - I appreciate your attempt to provide documentation on the "proof" that Anarchy works, however you're comparing two vastly different situations, and assuming that the premise holds true for both.

Looking at an ancient city and saying that Anarchy worked then for them, and comparing that to our CURRENT culture with all of the vast differences between the two, you can see that Anarchy doesn't have the same implications. What works for a small group of people (for instance, Communism/Socialism works well in small scales, as can be seen in small communes) rarely works the same when you hit a macroscopic scale.

Further, your assessment of the "only necessary laws" being "Don't deliberately physically hurt anyone" and "Don't take other people's stuff"... I really hope that you don't believe that's all the governing that we need. If those were the only laws that existed, you would have an absolutely terrible society.

Let's look at some things that your "only necessary laws" fail to cover.

Statutory Rape - You may claim that "Don't deliberately physically hurt anyone" should cover this, but let's look at the counter arguments. Perpetrator A, a 32 year old male claims that they had sex with the 14 year old girl because they loved her. She wasn't physically forced to be involved, and suffered no injury. Your definition says that he didn't do anything wrong. You've failed to account for psychological trauma. You've failed to account for age restrictions for the protection of our children. Furthermore, if a Father or Mother attacked a man who was in the process of violating their child, they would be in violation of your first law. Guess we should add a law to protect our children from this sort of thing, eh?

Arson - By your laws, as long as I wait to make sure everyone is outside of a home, I'm free to burn it down on a whim. I haven't "physically" hurt anyone, and I haven't "taken" their belongings. I just destroyed them. Guess we better add a law to protect people from this sort of thing too.

DUI - By your laws, anyone has the right to climb behind a vehicle and careen down the road at whatever speed they want, whether they're intoxicated or not. Nevermind the fact that these drunk drivers are endangering the lives of others. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) released data showing 10,322 drunk driving fatalities in 2012. That's WITH us having laws against such actions. Your law states that I would have to deliberately harm another person. Well, I'm pretty sure that kicking back a cold one and driving home isn't "deliberately" harming the person I just happen to crash my vehicle into because I lost control due to being blitzed out of my mind. So, probably a good thing to add a law in there about that, too.

Indecent Exposure - With no laws to prevent it, people are free to go shag in the middle of the streets. That'll teach our kids from a young age, won't it? Or maybe people sitting around masturbating on park benches is okay in your book... and while you're entitled to your opinion on that, the majority of our citizens tend to think poorly of such displays. However, with your laws, none of this is something that you can put a stop to. Probably a good law to add.

...I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt at this point in assuming that you can see the pattern forming here. There is -far- more than the two situations that you've outlined that needs to be regulated in a huge society like ours. We're a large country, not a single city. The laws that are in place are meant to govern what acts are considered acceptable and what acts aren't. They're meant to provide safety to our citizens and our children.

What you may be failing to realize (I'm not sure how much of the conversation I had with Nick Mcalpin you may have read) is that I am not "all for" having a bunch of stupid laws. But I'm also not "all for" removing sensible laws. The issue (as I described earlier) is that a law I find sensible, you may find as "too personally restricting." You might not see a problem with farmers going out and shagging their sheepdogs, but I as a concerned animal rights activist don't want animals to go on being abused. You might not think that wildlife needs to be regulated in any way, and that anyone should be able to go out and kill an animal at any time, without regulations... but I as an educated individual know that such actions can lead to the destruction of entire ecosystems. We may disagree on what laws are necessary. We may not. But I guarantee you that there are laws you think are dumb that I as a citizen believe are imperative to our way of life.

Why do I go on about this stuff? Because it proves a point. Your idea of "only these two laws" is exactly what we *don't* need. You may think you've got it all figured out, but as a single human being, it's almost inconceivable that you could have any clue about the needs of citizens in all 50 states (needs that are different based on such things as climate, economy, socio-political stage, etc...) and just as inconceivable that you have the ability to set down one or two laws, abolish the rest of them, and suddenly have a "good" society. I guarantee you that your suggestion would end up with utter chaos.

Look at Ferguson. People want to claim that it was all about outrage because of police brutality against a colored kid. But if that's the case... Why were they looting and destroying stuff from local businesses that had nothing to do with it? Look at the chaos that happened. Look at that great example of human nature. "Oh hey look, there's riots going on over this... let's go use that as a distraction so we can go get new TV's y'all!"

The point is, there are bad people out there. There are also good people who do bad things. We need laws within a civilized society to protect us from more than just theft and intentional physical harm.

Stop acting stupid bro! It has nothing to do with physics, so why you brought it up I don't know. All the detectives and patrolman in a precinct arrest, and deal with and talk with the same criminals. Those crooks snitch to save themselves by giving information on other crooks AND CROOKED COPS AS WELL; so stop playing stupid smart guy! Most of them snitch! If it weren't for snitching half of the shit wouldn't get solved. They hear the stories of the crooked ones from those people, they all do, at some point in the game. The cops KNOW which of them are dirty and who isn't. So take that NAIEVE bullshit about it's not like that somewhere else! The only one your brainwashing is yourself. EVERYONE else knows how the shit goes down, in the world of reality. A place you seem to know nothing about with your corny ass little stories! Go bury your head back in the sand, for you it seems safer to deny, or act as if the truth isn't there.

Scotty TheInsane The problem with your scenario is that the investigation alerts all officers in Precinct A of the illegal activity and years pass without a SINGLE officer stopping what they all know is happening. If I had a friend hurting people for "sport" and I pretended not to notice, would I still be a criminal?

Scotty TheInsane You make a valid point, I'd like to point out there are a lot more precincts than A-Z, and there are a lot more bad cops that just 1 in the whole group, where would all the incidents come from other wise.
So Z does not know what is going on at A except the rumors, maybe the Chiefs talk to each other, maybe they know what is going on, or only have strong suspicions. Still who is to say Z doesn't have a bad apple, or Q, or D, or ZZ...get my point. The fact that we can't state numbers in black in white should not be used to disprove or prove any theory. One can only use logic to surmise that since we have these scattered stories, there are a lot of bad apples all over the place, therefore in these incidents that most people deem unjust, there are a lot of complicit cops staying quiet.

Yet another valid point, not every single cop may have information to help bring the bad ones to justice. A very good observation, yet the fact that we have all these incidents, and very few where justice is actually served, certainly in some of these cases someone on their side of the blue line actually knows something, investigators collect evidence and testimony, present their findings to their superiors. Ok the process and all right. How many times does the system work, and the DA and the Judge only offer the minimal punishment possible? More than cops are responsible, but they play their role. Not all cops do bad things, but there are certainly some that keep quiet when cops do bad things, and when that does not happen, justice usually is not carried out. How about the cop who got fired, became a Preacher, and molested children (while a cop) wasn't arrested until 10 years after his crimes. Some sort of miscarriage of justice. All too common that the criminal justice system fails, and all too often do police seem to be treated differently than common folks.

In conclusion I agree partial with your opinion, but you use the same broad generalization that everyone here uses. Or to put in other words, I think you tried to enforce your point to strongly. Yeah there are cops that do not do bad things, and are completely ignorant of what other cops do. Are we to say those cops are bad too. Then again if all cops have low IQs, how are they to figure out that some of these cops are crooked and put the pieces together. So yeah..I get that...but you can not argue that the only facts we have, incidents where Police get away with acts of violence, or are given lenient treatment when punished for breaking the law. Police militarization, and increased police aggression are being met with increased public awareness and public outcry.

My writing and grammar are S**T, but I do not have a low IQ at all. Furthermore, I am typing this quickly, so please do not judge. At the end of the day, there appears to be some people who belong to a certain class, police, and some of these people are getting away with murder. Does it REALLY matter if it is 1 or 100? In the school of rational thought and debate, do numbers REALLY make things any worse than they already are? The criminal Justice system is corrupt and failed, just like our entire system. Not every member needs to be bad, or corrupted, for the system to fail. There are good people in the system, but it is WHO is corrupted, at what levels, which has led to the overall failure of the system. i'd rather not get into the debate that this is done by design.

At the end of the day, there is no justice for some, and that in it self, means the whole system fails. Some people may get justice, others do not. IS this right or just? No. Do we need to hate everyone in the system, no. Still we can not close our eyes to what seems to be self evident and true to any rational thinking person. All of this, is just a symptom of the underlying problem.

Same here, several times over (35+ in ten years) as of today. Frequently pulled over for no legitimate reason, interviewed for standing on the street while waiting for a cab, and another time just for resting. Getting interviewed at my own door because the lady who lives below me is insane and having to explain that every time instead of them actually dealing with her, plus the time I had to eject a crazy person from my home and got arrested and spent three days in jail without charges, and another time I decided to let the police handle it and they acted like I was being a big pussy for not handling it myself. These people are losers and cowards with no prospects in their life but making others pay for how miserable they feel. Until it happens to you, I can understand why it wouldn't matter, but when it does, your eyes open to a whole new world of evil.

Tom Tom...Same here. It wasn't isolated to once either. Ive seen enough with my own two eyes to set my opinion. Yes, Ive known, and know now, some very good police…but the ones I have called for help, or who have entered into my life have been impossibly violent, abusive, and indifferent to crime. MANY times Ive seen abuse of citizens other than myself, so…for me this is hard truth. I don't pretend that all of you ought to mistrust the police. You can chose to believe what you want.

I too was assaulted in my own home 5 days after open heart surgery by sheriff's deputies who didn't/couldn't read a warrant. if they had they'd have noticed the warrant was for a bogus address. I've been anti thug since.

I learned that lesson at a very early age. I got selected by a group of kids in high school to be their entertainment via the system. They told the teachers I had a bomb. Though troubled as I was in high school, I had no bomb or any intention of making said bomb. However, I was taken into the office an interrogated for three hours about a bomb that didn't exist. Why I finally had enough and when to leave I had three cops jump on me and pepper spray me. I was obviously struggling as I didn't know what was going on. I was 17 for crying out loud. They knocked me out and I woke up in the back of a squad car hogtied at the county jail. I spent a year in there pretty much just waiting for my case to get processed. No one batted an eye and my dad, the only legal guardian I had at the time, just left me rot. Forget the police and our current legal system. They are both corrupt.

I hear you chief, I've been harrassed many time's for no reason never trust a cop, they are not good guys they are not hero's they are bad guys, so I say this know your rights and legal options if something happens read up on your city and state penal codes to protect yourself and your family cause you can't count on or trust the cops and the so called justice system to do the right thing they will ALWAYS favor their own.

http://countercurrentnews.com/2014/12/ex-nypd-cop-admits/
FTA:
It’s not your imagination: the New York Police Department has been planing evidence and framing innocent people all in order to meet arrest quotes.

This comes as an a former New York City narcotics detective, Stephen Anderson, testified in court that the NYPD routinely plants drugs on innocent people. He described this as a “common practice,” a “quick and easy” way for officers to reach arrest quotas.

http://www.notbeinggoverned.com/dont-break-law-part-2-breathe-easy/
FTA:
In Part 1 of this series, we explored some instances when innocent people were killed by the police to combat the logic of the statement, “Breathe easy, don’t break the law.”

In Part 2 we will explore more people in different circumstances who also are no longer breathing despite not having broken the law.

Jamie Curtis What, how dare you feel picked on when you live in an artificially controlled society that is completely oppressive towards 99% of the world's population, for the benefit of the 1%?! I think it is a perfectly sane response. Troll detected..don't feed the trolls.

This is the last I will say on the topic. When professionally-employed, middle-aged, white grandmothers like myself loose all faith in every aspect of the criminal justice system from police to judges, you know things are very messed up. And, police have no one but themselves to blame for the total lack of trust and respect. I don't even see them as humans anymore. I see a badge and every manner of negative stereotype comes to mind, so I avoid them like the plague. I strongly recommend NOT talking to police under any circumstances, other than to ask if a) you are suspected of having committed a crime, and b) if you are free to go.

This is sad, and scary. Police agencies hire the less intelligent, most violent, and they really don't have to "protect and serve", SCARY. As long as the bad cops can get away with being thugs, the good cops will always look bad.

The police need to be policed by nonpolice. Elected individuals that examine the cases brought to them by the people. How to make that happen and how to pay for it. I don't know. Police are out of control.

We already have people like this, they are already corrupt. Your point is it should be SOP to have IA investigate, AND an outside independent investigation as well. The police should not police the police, the system should not police the system, too many chances for intrigue and corruption. "Yeah officer X really screwed the pooch on this one! If we release the report saying he misconducted himself in office, all of us and the local government will be liable. It will costs millions...best to cover it up for the "greater good"".

Richard Vincent Farias It's weird, it does look like I implied that. I mean, rape is when you're forced against your will to do something you don't want to do that is illegal and that you have to give in to because there is a show of force or threat if you resist. Whatever could I have been thinking? How insensitive of me. Next thing you know, I'll be accused of using sarcasm.

And since I think we can all agree that any mature person knows all gays aren't rapists, lets use some other analogies (no prefix pun intended) to help Richard. I'm not saying all cops are violent, but have your cameras rolling anyway. I'm not saying all cops will plant evidence, but have witnesses with you anyway. I'm not saying all MALE cops are hetero, but if you're a woman, it's best not to be alone. I'm not saying all cops lie, but it's best to know your laws anyway. I'm not saying all cops are evil, but it's best to keep Holy Water in a glass, just in case. I'm not saying all cops are out to get you (no, really, there are plenty of good ones) but it's best to kiss their ass and ignore your rights because in this day and age, if they don't shoot, beat, or rape you, they'll take you to jail on a disorderly just to fuck your day up. If any of those work, lemme know.

And remember their most dangerous weapon is not their gun, taser or baton it's their RADIO!!!!! If you plan on resistance ORGANIZE!!!!! Take him down early in the encounter, get his radio before he can call for back up. Incapacitate the true criminal and run!!!!! KO if possible worse if necessary!!!!! You should practice this drill until you are confident you can stop the criminal fast and flee quickly!!!! Strike and hide is how we will win!!!!!

Who need cops?? Why can't we protect ourselves against the criminals?? Criminals are again the smaller population similar to the U.S authorities' population than the good civilians population! This country is the world largest FORTRESS!! Got that?

only a pysicpath will say that are freakin child milster why dont u just follow the law then have no reason to bug you there's no different between cop and miltary person so follow the law they are here to protect people from morons like your self :)

here is one for the record...........detectives were once dispatched to my house because someone reported that my kids and i stole a duck from a public park........true story
.......we had to prove that the duck was actually ours.....and we proved that by showing the detectives piles of duck shit in our back yard.......all we were guilty of was letting our little duckling take a swim and then bringing him back home with us.,,,,,,,the detectives scared the hell out of me.......pounding on my door after dark.......especially since my husband was not home........this was an absolutely insane dispatch......however the cops were following up on a citizen complaint.......but i will never be a cop hater.......and no one will ever convince me otherwise......because i lost my little boy when he was just four years old.........and those big bad stupid cops that you all refer to.....found my boy......and brought him home safely to me.

PeterthreeDogs Mulshine : Libertarians want more personal freedom and less government. Ron Paul knows that the fetus is a living vessel. He should, he was an OB/GYN w/ his own 35 year practice. He believes 'we the people' should not have the gov't sticking their nose into our personal business. Not sure where you're getting your information but, you are not accurate. Democrats and Republicans of today are nothing like they were years ago. Both have done good things and both have done things that were (are) less than good. Both are ruining our country today. Get off your democrat soap-box... you'll not make a sale with me. And please get your facts straight per Libertarians. Take care.

PeterthreeDogs Mulshine : Abortion is MURDER. Why do all of you liberals think we should save the planet.. hug a tree.. treat animals with respect and kindness... and view abortion as a-ok? I am a Libertarian-Conservative. You're calling me a fool? You're an Obama boot-licker. So, who is the fool? Bush and Obama are both against the American people. Wake up. Seems you have a special hatred for the wealthy. Perhaps, you love corporations? Bush does... Obama does. Both have done their parts in turning our beloved country into a Fascist-Socialism entity. Corporations pay very little to no taxes. Trust me... pollution is the least of our issues right now. And it has nothing to do with any particular political party. Maybe you should move into a commune?

PeterthreeDogs Mulshine : RP is against abortion.. his own personal beliefs. However, he knows its not all about himself.. therefore, he say that should be left up to the individual states to decide and not the the federal gov't. From the moment of conception, a fetus does indeed have a right to continue to live. IMO, the mothers should have a say in whether or not to have unprotected sex or not. And Ron Paul is not into.. nor does he support 'men-boy love' and all of that trash. Please give me the link to that site. Because my guess is that you're trying to talk down Libertarians and while praising the liberals aka those who are making the USA weak.

Like I said.. lib-tards are all about saving the planet.. animals.. trees... and have no problem with MURDER OF THE UNBORN.

I'm a law abiding citizen that pays a great deal of taxes. I tell everyone I know, never call the cops unless it's life or death. Never let them inside. Never say anything unnecessary to police. Just look away. And make a mental note of where they live. I saw the action from Ukraine.

PeterthreeDogs Mulshine What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

PeterthreeDogs Mulshine Your idiotic bigotry is insulting the rest of mankind. I'm gay, former Military, and have absolutely no attraction to prepubescence. You're confusing homosexuality with pedophilia, and quite honestly, it makes you look unintelligent.

I too believe 'We the People' should not have our government sticking its nose into our personal business - and there is very little more PERSONAL to me, than whether or not I carry a particular pregnancy. Legislating against a specific set of medical procedures, and the provision of same by qualified professionals in a sterile environment, is the government sticking its nose where it doesn't belong. And the belief that a human fetus OR a pregnant woman, is a VESSEL, is one I do not share. I should NOT be legally subject to that belief, and I will never recognize your right to affect my medical choices. I'm guessing you identify as pro-life, Margo, but it sounds to me like you're really just pro-illegal-abortion.

Margo Victoria Quite right. I am Libertarian. I used to be Republican but am far from that now since Rep & Dem are only mud-slinging now and not solving any problems but making them instead. The Libertarians are the only ones seeing the problems and coming up with solutions that would benefit everyone (except the Rep/Dem politicians).

It does not surprise me that intentional hiring of low IQ individuals is the norm. Yet this still does not justify the brutal behavior of these people. It is awful when you fear those who are allegedly there to protect you.

You're not paying attention, nor did you read the article. The police are there to protect the state, not individuals, in any circumstance. Warren v. District of Columbia 2005 Supreme Court Decision. They hire people that do what they are told because rational and logical people would not treat others in this manner.

I've been victim of more then police brutality my stories all over my page. I refuse file civil Suit for punitive damages and restoration of my legal constituional rights because like many black market or fair skin toned children even adults after lawsuit or before the threats which were in place will possibly nor lead to conviction but the assaulters coming back to harm steal or possibly murder so with all that being said and so much still unexplained because of threats to maintain silent ........

All information, data, and material contained, presented, or provided on TheFreeThoughtProject.com is for educational purposes only. It is not to be construed or intended as providing medical or legal advice. Any views expressed here-in are not necessarily those held by TheFreeThoughtProject.com
Privacy Policy
Disclaimer
Terms and Conditions

Copyright info. We put out this information to incite change. The more people that see it, the more potential for change. Feel free to republish all original content from this site. We just ask that you link back to us. You will not be sued for aiding humanity in the struggle for peace! ;)